What is Liberal?

This one sentence absolutely typefies all of the anti-intellectualist arrogance of the right. Absolutely disgusting. Do you know how much right-wing drivel - talk radio and Fox News - I sit through because I want to know what they're saying on your side before I take folks like you on? Hours and hours.And you can't even sit through two hours of Michael Moore before opening your fat mouth about him? God, the worst part about Republican Christians being in control of all branches of the government is listening to them whine, whine, whine. Listening to them shoot their mouths off about stuff that they'll come right out and tell you they know nothing about.

I think much of this revisionist history (believing America to be a Christian nation founded on Christian principles with a Christian government) can be traced to the Cold War, especially during the McCarthy era.After all, we needed something to further villify the USSR. Why not equate communism with "godless, heathen atheism?" And we can associate the US with "good Christian family values." That way, it looks like the dirty commies are going to come and take away your bible and force you to be like them. It's a great way to rally up the Christian majority, and it further seperates "us" from "them." Dehumanization of the enemy is always good for war.My hypothesis is evidenced by the addition of "under God" to the Pledge during the McCarthy era. This was done for exactly the reasons I just mentioned - to seperate "us" from the "dirty, heathen, godless commies." I'm sure there are more examples.Please, Faith, tell me that you at least knew that "under God" was not always in the pledge.

Why does that surprise you? We do that all the time. It's sex if you say "yes" to your husband, but rape if you say "no", even though it's the exact same physical situation.It's murder if you poison someone with a needle, unless you're executing a death sentence to a criminal. Exact same physical situation, but the context makes all the difference.There's no inconsistency at all, no irony in the least, to the same physical situation meaning two different things in two different contexts.

i've never heard it before, and i've been paying attention and listening to both sides for years. just ignore the argument. i'm not saying that it's not killing a human being. got that?i'm saying that the government does not have jurisdiction over your internal organs, unless an especially clear interest can be shown. and that interest becomes more valid as the term increases. i'm basically paraphrasing roe here. most abortion laws are overruled rather plainly because they make this assumption. it's called being "overbroad." laws have to specific and tailored -- but not individualized. actually, it's not. it's only reason roe won - privacy, and the right not to be physically probed by the government. doesn't matter if the baby is part of the mother's body or not. what matters is time from conception and whether or not it takes place inside the mother's body. that's it. and time from conception is only there because nearly everyone agrees that late term abortions are sickening. in other words, it's a compromise. surpsingly few conceptions actually result in birth. i'm not just talking about miscariages, either. i've bolded the important part. no, you don't know how to treat it legally. i do. the legality of it is a 4th amendment issue. intrusion into a woman's uterus by the government is an invasion of privacy. we are willing to give up privacy under certain conditions: at the airport, for instance, we all agree that for the general safety searches maybe be performed. similarly, towards the 2 and 3rd trimesters of a pregnancy, this invasion of privacy is allowable.but right now the legal standard is that during the 1st, it's not. it may change, at some point, if we can all agree that this invasion of privacy is warranted in the 1st trimester too. but i'm not sure if that will happen.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

It is commonly referred to as the Abortion Industry. I didn't make it up.

​

i've never heard it before, and i've been paying attention and listening to both sides for years.

---

I don't know how common it is, but I have seen it a number of times in the anti-abortion literature.

and there are no true scotsmen. thank you! the rationale before, i imagine, is that the government shouldn't get involved. which is just what it is not, only in a codified leagl way.

---

אָרַח

I used to like him, but I find his style deceptive. He twists facts and heavely edits his movies to push his point.It's irritating because HE DOES HAVE A POINT, It's sad that he dosn't use actual facts to support them. Especially concidering that plenty of those facts stand on their own needless of his heavy handed editing.

then again, i suppose i've been ignoring the raving-lunatice pro-lifers in favor of the ones that made some sense.

---

אָרַח

yes, i was severely disappointed with farenheit 911. i mean, i knew everything he said anyways, but i mean, comeon! let's have one more shot of a crying mother!

---

אָרַח

ok, let's look at the use of the words freedom then.pop quiz faith. i'll give you an easy one. true or false.after the french aided the british colonies in the american revolution, the new american nation helped them in return with the french revolution.i don't think the founding fathers considered "freedom" to be something you force on other countries -- let alone get involved in other countries. have you looked up the word "bigot" yet faith?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-22-2005 05:17 PM

---

אָרַח

Of course she has! Her arguments are the examples used to define bogotry!In all seriousness, Faith, pehaps you should step back and imagine how you would feel if a Muslim or person of some other non-Christian faith was saying the same things you are. Walk in the shoes of the other guy for a few seconds. A little empathy never hurts. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," and all.

oh, the irony.no, see, look above. faith is arguing against abortion on very personal terms -- most people who have them seem to become rabid pro-lifers. it's almost as if she wishes the government had made her make a better choice. so she *IS* seeing it from the otherside. she just doesn't like what she sees.it's like an older brother teasing a younger brother because he's reminded too much of himself.

---

אָרַח

Well, it's not bad to try to warn others using your own experiences as an example. Though zealously pushing legislation to force her new views on others is a stretch too far.In any case, I was referring to her previous, pro-Theocracy statements. The reason she's a bigot. "If Christians rule the world it's good, but if pagans and Muslims rule the world it's bad." She can't see the hypocracy in that stement, or why it means that government must be kept secular for her sake as well as the rest of us.Irony indeed.This message has been edited by Rahvin, 07-22-2005 06:10 PM

yes, there's quite a difference between being a pro-life advocate, and an advocate that government enforce pro-life. quite.

---

אָרַח

People say that, like in regards to Farenheight 9/11, but I've never seen that successfully defended, nor had anyone give me a really clear idea what facts, exactly, are being twisted.Moreover he's actually published a book that responds to his critics and successfully defends F9/11 against every factual dispute I've encountered.I'd be thrilled, however, to discuss exactly what facts he distorts. In fact there's a thread for that exact purpose. In another thread I asked someone, anyone, to tell me exactly what was wrong in F9/11 but no one was able to. I've never seen a criticism that was able to successfully diminsh any of the main arguments of the movie, but I'm no Moore partisan, so I'm totally open to, even enthusiastic about, correction.